Universal Jurisdiction

[bixaorellana]

Has anyone been following the story of Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón?

He has been ordered to stand trial for the investigation of the fate of 113,000 people who disappeared during the Spanish Civil War. The ruling states that Garzón started his inquiry despite being "aware of his lack of jurisdiction" under a 1977 amnesty for Francoist crimes. Garzón has argued that the amnesty does not apply because an ongoing crime of kidnapping exists where no body has been found.

(read the article from The Guardian)

Do you feel that Garzón acted properly, or did he flout the amnesty that supposedly applied in this case?
If so, was he justified by the circumstances?

Here is TRIAL's explanation of the principle of universal jurisdiction:

The principle of universal jurisdiction stems from the postulate that some crimes are so serious that they harm the international community as a whole and that, as a consequence, States are entitled, if not required, to bring proceedings against the perpetrators, regardless of the location of the crime and the nationality of the perpetrator or of the victims. <-- click text to read the rest

For an even more in-depth examination of the principle of universal jurisdiction,
visit the Global Policy Forum's website.

[bjd]

It's sad that the far right in Spain is still powerful enough to prevent Garzon from digging up their dirty past.

[Deleted]

I would say there is no amnesty in the case of missing persons, because until a full investigation is made, nobody can possibly know if the disappearance was a political event subject to amnesty or a personal criminal act.

Even if nobody can be prosecuted in the end, it is very important that any findings be made public.

[bixaorellana]

Here's an interesting follow-up:

... Garzon himself now faces the prospect of a career-ending judicial investigation for allegedly abusing his authority by opening an investigation into deaths and disappearances in Franco's Spain.

So Garzon's supporters now hope to launch the same investigation, citing the same principles of international law — from Buenos Aires.
...

Attorney Carlos Slepoy, a specialist in human rights law, told The Associated Press the plaintiffs are invoking the principle of universal jurisdiction, which provides that genocide and crimes against humanity "can be prosecuted by the courts of any country."
...

The plaintiffs want the Argentine courts to expand the case to include any murders and disappearances committed by Franco's forces between July 17, 1936, the day before Franco's military turned against Spain's Republican government, and June 15, 1977, when Spain held its first democratic elections following the dictator's death in 1975.
...

The federal court in Buenos Aires will assign a judge, who will seek the opinion of an Argentine prosecutor and then decide whether to take the case. If so, it would be the first time an Argentine federal judge invoked universal jurisdiction for crimes committed outside the country.

Full story: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_argentina_spain_human_rights

[lagatta]

That is ironic, considering that Garzón, if I recall, also investigated the "disappearance" of Spanish nationals in the Operacíon Condor dictatorships such as Argentina and Chile.

Yes, I'd read this, but had been busy with other stuff so had not followed this complex case and issue as much as I'd like.

[hwinpp]

I don't believe in universal jurisdiction, politics are too important for that.

Does Garzon make his decisions to investigate and prosecute cases on his own or does a judge need to give him an OK?